Miami International Attorneys, in conjunction with Bernhard Law Firm and Andrew Bernhard, filed three fraud lawsuits this week. The fraud lawsuits arose out of a mortgage fraud, an auto dealer fraud, and a landlord security deposit fraud. Should you or an acquaintance have a mortgage fraud, auto dealer fraud, or landlord security deposit fraud question or issue, please contact Miami International Attorneys at email@example.com, 786-566-1969, or www.miapl.com. A brief description of each lawsuit follows.
Fraud lawsuit #1: prosecution of mortgage fraud
Miami International Attorneys‘s first suit, T.J. v. C.T.B, is an action arising out of mortgage fraud and the fraudulent transfers of a note and mortgage originated by Option One Mortgage Corporation. Miami International Attorneys, representing a property investor, intervened in the bank’s mortgage foreclosure action to assert the property investor’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, injunction and cancellation, slander of title, and violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against both the bank and the bank’s former servicer. Miami International Attorneys alleges that a once simple mortgage lien matter now involves 16 different entities participating in widespread mismanagement and fraud relating to one mortgage allegedly encumbering the investor’s property. Most of these companies, beginning with Option One, have individually or collectively claimed ownership or rights to the note and mortgage at issue. Miami International Attorneys alleges that the havoc and confusion created has cost the property investor substantial fees and lost investment. Accordingly, Miami International Attorneys seeks damages for the investor’s losses, an order enjoining the immediately culpable entities from continuing their fraudulent acts and requiring them to record a cancellation of their fraudulent assignment documents, attorney’s fees and costs, sanctions, and any other remedy the Court deems just and proper.
Miami International Attorneys‘s complaint details the interesting history of Option One’s fraudulent mortgage practices and 2008 disbarment from mortgage lending. An excerpt of that brief history is copied here: Option One was established in the early 1990s, and began a nationwide business of non-prime residential mortgage origination and servicing out of Irvine, California. By 2005, the United States Attorney’s Office had warned Option One that instances of fraud were occurring in connection with Option One loans, and Option One expressly acknowledged its awareness of these frauds. In August 2008, the State of California found that Option One had violated California Financial Code § 50205 and had “conduct[ed] business in such an unsafe and injurious manner as to render further operations hazardous to the public or to customers.” The California Department of Corporations ordered Option One to immediately discontinue its residential mortgage lending and servicing activities altogether. In September 2009, the California Department of Corporations revoked Option One’s residential mortgage lender and mortgage loan servicer license, thereby concluding Option One’s ability to legally engage in any mortgage servicing. In April 2012, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filed suit in the United States District Court of California against Option One for violations of federal securities laws related to Option One’s fraudulent sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. See United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Option One Mortgage Corporation n/k/a Sand Canyon Corporation, 12-cv-633, C.D. Cal., April 24, 2012. The SEC demanded that the Court enjoin Option One, and its claimed affiliate Sand Canyon Corporation from further violations, and disgorge Option One of all ill-gotten gains from its improper conveyances of residential mortgages. That same day, Sand Canyon agreed to pay $28.2 million to settle the SEC’s charges against them.
Should you or an acquaintance have a mortgage foreclosure question or issue regarding a bank’s charges on your mortgage bills, please contact Miami International Attorneys at firstname.lastname@example.org, 786-566-1969, or www.miapl.com.
Fraud lawsuit #2: civil prosecution of auto dealer fraud
Miami International Attorneys‘s second suit, A.E. v. 2 F.A.E., is an action arising out of the fraudulent sale of an automobile. Miami International Attorneys, representing the consumer, filed its action to assert violations of Florida Statutes §§ 68.065(3) (worthless check), 501.204 (FDUTPA), 559.72(9) (FCCPA), and 772.11 (civil theft), and federal statutes 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e–f) (FDCPA), requesting a judgment against the auto dealer for funds fraudulently converted from the consumer, resulting bank and state charges, interest, attorney’s fees, and other damages. According to the complaint, Miami International Attorneys joined the dealer’s other business entities because they were alter egos of the dealership owner and concealed assets for him. A brief history of the alleged events leading up to the lawsuit are provided from the Complaint here:
Miami International Attorneys alleges that beginning in July 2013, the auto dealer and its affiliates repeatedly committed fraud and theft upon the consumer. The auto dealer’s improper acts began when it misled the consumer to transfer a significant down payment to the dealer under the fraudulent guise of a car purchase down payment. To enhance the fraud, the dealer allowed the consumer to use a car that the dealer had no right or entitlement to use or convey, fraudulently misrepresenting to the consumer that he had legally purchased the car from the dealer. To sustain the fraud, the dealer repeatedly issued temporary tags while billing fraudulent car payment installments to the consumer, and collecting monthly payments on these false invoices. Miami International Attorneys alleges that this fraudulent scheme unraveled when an unknown legal owner or lienholder of the car repossessed it from the consumer. Upon the consumer’s confrontation, the auto dealer admitted its deceit, only to then magnify it by issuing a worthless refund check for some of the money stolen. When the consumer deposited the worthless check, the bank rejected it and charged the consumer further fees. To exacerbate the fraud, the auto dealer reused the consumer’s temporary license tags from the repossessed vehicle on another car, and allowed that car to drive the public roadways, as evidenced by a toll violation on that car that the consumer received in late 2013. The auto dealer never returned the consumer’s funds, car, or temporary tags, and never compensated the consumer for his losses.
Should you or an acquaintance have an auto purchase or leasing question or issue regarding an auto dealer’s handling of your car purchase or lease, please contact Miami International Attorneys at email@example.com, 786-566-1969, or www.miapl.com.
Fraud lawsuit #3: landlord security deposit fraud
Miami International Attorneys‘s third lawsuit, B.R. v. E.B., is an action arising out of the fraudulent retention of a tenant’s security deposit by the landlord. Miami International Attorneys, representing the tenant, filed its action to assert claims of fraud and fraud in the inducement, civil theft and conversion, breach of contract and violation of Florida Statutes § 83.49, and unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation against the landlord. Miami International Attorneys seeks treble damages (triple the amount of the security deposit), plus attorney’s fees and costs. A brief history of the alleged events leading up to the lawsuit are provided from the Complaint here:
The action arose out of the defendant-landlord’s improper retention of the plaintiff-tenant’s security deposit. The circumstances underlying the Complaint are straightforward: in 2013, the tenant leased an apartment from the landlord for a one-year term. As is customary, the tenant temporarily transferred a deposit to the landlord to secure for any damage the tenant might cause to the apartment in that year, excluding wear and tear and events expressly excepted in the lease. The tenant did not damage the apartment in any way beyond wear and tear and events expressly excepted in the lease, as reflected in the landlord’s final walk-through inspection documents. The landlord nevertheless refused to return the security deposit. The landlord instead made several conflicting and fraudulent claims to the security deposit, none of which assert damage beyond wear and tear and that expressly excepted in the lease. The tenant retained Miami International Attorneys, who properly delivered a timely objection to the landlord’s fraudulent claim to the security deposit and a civil theft notice under Florida Statutes § 772.11. The landlord confirmed receipt of the objection and civil theft notice in writing. The civil theft statutory safe harbor period expired and the landlord failed to return the security deposit. Accordingly, Miami International Attorneys argues that the tenant is entitled to treble damages plus interest for his loss, attorney’s fees and costs, and any other remedy the Court deems just and proper.
Should you or an acquaintance have a security deposit question or an issue regarding return of your security deposit, please contact Miami International Attorneys at firstname.lastname@example.org, 786-566-1969, or www.miapl.com.